Lansing Leroy Mitchell

In Assavedo v. Apfel, plaintiff Murphy Assavedo sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the Commissioner's denial of his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, claiming disability since 1994 due to chest pains. The ALJ had found that Assavedo had a severe impairment but retained the residual functional capacity for a range of light work with limitations, was a younger individual with a sixth-grade education, could not return to past work, but could perform other unskilled jobs such as kitchen worker. The district court applied the substantial evidence standard of review and determined that the record supported the ALJ's findings on the claimant's medical condition, credibility of symptoms, functional capacity, education level, and ability to adjust to other work. The court therefore denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion, affirming the denial of benefits.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case involved a Jones Act seaman, Michael Wilcox, who alleged wrist injuries from operating defective braking equipment on an offshore drilling rig owned by Transworld Drilling Company, a subsidiary of Kerr-McGee Corporation. The parties stipulated to the plaintiff's seaman status, the employer's negligence, and the rig's unseaworthiness, leaving the court to determine causation of the injury, eligibility for punitive damages, and whether to pierce the corporate veil. The court concluded that the workplace conditions caused or aggravated the wrist condition, awarding $600,000 in compensatory damages for lost wages, disability, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of consortium, while denying punitive damages due to insufficient evidence.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case arose from a 1979 bicycle-automobile accident in which Craig Bohn was injured by Brian Allee-Walsh, an employee of The Times Picayune who was insured under a Sentry policy with $50,000 limits; Bohn settled with Sentry, released Allee-Walsh and Sentry while reserving claims against the newspaper, then obtained a $514,000 verdict against The Times Picayune (later settled for $485,000 with its excess insurer Liberty Mutual). The Times Picayune and Liberty Mutual filed a third-party action against Sentry alleging bad-faith failure to timely settle within policy limits, failure to communicate settlement offers, and arbitrary refusal to defend the newspaper as an additional insured after the settlement with the named insured. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment for Sentry, finding no bad faith because Sentry had acted reasonably given conflicting information about employment scope, had no duty to defend once its limits were exhausted by a good-faith payment, and owed no attorney fees absent a showing of bad faith.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved Dr. Edwin Hyde, a board-certified anesthesiologist, who was denied privileges at East Jefferson General Hospital due to its exclusive contract with Roux & Associates for all anesthesia services. The court made findings of fact regarding the hospital's governance as a public entity, the history and terms of the contract, and the hospital's stated reasons for maintaining a closed department, including quality control, 24-hour coverage, efficient scheduling, and equipment oversight. The court concluded that the exclusive arrangement did not violate antitrust laws or due process requirements, as the hospital board's policy was reasonable and within its authority to ensure efficient operations and patient care, drawing on precedents upholding similar closed-staff arrangements in other hospital departments.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved landowners challenging a 1976 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers order that halted Phase II of a small flood control project in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, which included completing levees and building a pumping station to drain wetlands. The plaintiffs sought to invalidate the order and compel completion of the project as originally approved in 1964 under the Flood Control Act. The court upheld the Corps' decision, finding that the agency properly applied Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 to require review of the remaining work, that the order was supported by the administrative record, and that the plaintiffs had received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. It rejected claims of a Fifth Amendment taking, enforceable contractual rights against the United States, or violations of procedural or substantive due process, and held that any remedies would be limited to money damages in the Court of Claims rather than specific performance.

environmentfederal powerpropertyprocedure

In Carroll v. Exxon Co., USA, Kathleen Carroll sued Exxon after her 1976 application for a credit card was denied without explanation or identification of the consumer reporting agency involved, claiming violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, with undisputed facts showing that Exxon initially provided no reasons or agency details, later sent an undated letter with partial information, and only identified the credit bureau after the lawsuit was filed. The court held that Exxon violated the FCRA by failing to disclose the agency's name and address contemporaneously with the credit denial, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a), and rejected defenses based on the lack of an applicant request, delayed compliance, and purported reasonable procedures. Core reasoning emphasized the statute's plain language mandating proactive disclosure without preconditions and the inadequacy of post-litigation notifications to cure prior omissions.

business & regulatory

This admiralty case arose after the unmanned S/S American Oriole broke loose from Todd Shipyard's New Orleans berth during severe weather on January 10, 1975, drifting into and damaging the moored S/S Locarno, several anchored vessels, and a nearby wharf. The owners of the damaged vessels and wharf sued the American Oriole's owner, the shipyard, and others for negligence; the ship owner cross-claimed against the shipyard. After a bench trial, the court held Todd Shipyard solely liable, finding it had taken custody of the vessel as a bailee for repairs and lay-up, owed a duty of reasonable care in mooring it, and breached that duty by failing to add sufficient lines or take other precautions despite an advance tornado watch. The court rejected an Act of God defense and found the presumption of fault against a drifting vessel rebutted because the ship had been surrendered to Todd's exclusive control a month earlier.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a former member of a Louisiana sugar cooperative suing the cooperative and its directors under the fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the defendants failed to disclose material information about accrued equity credits when the plaintiff sold back its single share of stock upon withdrawing from membership. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the cooperative's shares are not securities under the federal acts. The core reasoning was that the stock represented only membership in the cooperative—it was non-negotiable, paid no dividends, and could only be held by active members—while equity credits were patronage-based rebates rather than investment profits derived from the efforts of others, as required for an investment contract under Supreme Court precedent like SEC v. Howey.

business & regulatory

This case concerned claims by cargo owners Wirth Limited and Hoesch Siegerlandwerke against the operator of the S/S Acadia Forest for damage to shipments of iron plates and galvanized steel that occurred while lash barges carrying the cargo were being towed down the Weser River in Germany to meet the mother vessel. The plaintiffs alleged the cargo had been delivered in good condition but was damaged when a towing line snapped during an intricate lock navigation maneuver amid an ebb tide. After a bench trial limited to the liability issue, the court made detailed findings on the cargo loading, barge specifications, independent tug arrangements, tidal conditions, and the sequence of events including the line failure and corrective actions by the tugs. The court ruled the defendant carrier was not liable, reasoning that the incident constituted an error in navigation or management of the vessel exempt under COGSA, 46 U.S.C. § 1304(2)(a), and that the Act applied to the barge transit as part of the overall carriage.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a 1970 car accident in Louisiana in which a driver supplied by Zenith, Inc. to Shell Oil Company under a labor contract crossed the centerline and collided with another vehicle, severely injuring a passenger. A jury found that the driver was a borrowed employee of Shell at the time, rendering Shell vicariously liable for the injuries. In the subsequent third-party action, the court held that Shell was entitled to contractual indemnification from Zenith. The court reasoned that the parties had entered a valid, binding agreement containing an indemnity clause, rejecting Zenith's claims of economic duress or lack of mutual assent, and that the contract's terms required Zenith to hold Shell harmless for the driver's negligence.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case arose from a fire and explosion on Dow Chemical's manned barge while under tow by the THOMAS ALLEN in Louisiana waters, caused by striking an unmarked submerged gas pipeline; Dow sued the tug owner and its insurers for damages based on negligent towage and breach of the towing contract, also seeking indemnity, while the tug owner petitioned for limitation of liability and a seaman's Jones Act injury claim was settled by stipulation. The court consolidated the actions and, after trial, made detailed findings of fact about the towing arrangements, the shallow waters with known but uncharted pipelines, the tug captain's decisions to proceed despite grounding, and the parties' respective knowledge and duties. Applying principles of maritime law on towage negligence, the duty to avoid hazards, and insurance obligations, the court allocated responsibility for the losses between the parties and their insurers.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a 47-year-old plaintiff who sued his former employer, Ortho Pharmaceutical Company, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act after being discharged on April 13, 1970. The defendant moved to dismiss the suit because the plaintiff did not provide the required notice of intent to file a civil action to the Secretary of Labor until February 15, 1971, exceeding the 180-day deadline set by the statute. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the 180-day notice requirement is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite rather than merely directory. The reasoning centered on the plain statutory language using "shall," which courts must interpret as mandatory, along with Congress's intent to promote timely claims and allow for mediation while evidence is fresh. The court noted that equitable arguments for a remedial construction of the law should be directed to Congress, not the judiciary.

labor & employmentprocedure

This admiralty case concerned claims for damages after an 18-inch underwater pipeline owned by Gulf Oil was ruptured in the Gulf of Mexico during towing operations involving Brown & Root's derrick barge FOSTER PARKER and Gulf Mississippi Marine's tug GULF EXPLORER. Gulf Oil and Brown & Root sued the tug owner and tug in rem for negligence in navigation and towing decisions amid worsening weather, while the tug owner asserted cross-claims for tort indemnity against both plaintiffs. After a bench trial, the court issued detailed findings on the parties' conduct, including weather reports, anchor handling, failure to install a foghorn on an incomplete platform, and Gulf Oil's permit violations for the pipeline, then applied maritime negligence standards and burden-of-proof rules to allocate liability and enter judgment accordingly.

torts & liabilityproperty

The case involved a theater manager who sued New Orleans police officers under federal civil rights laws after they seized three films from his theater, deemed obscene under state and local laws, without a prior adversary hearing on obscenity or a warrant specifying the items. The plaintiff sought return of the films and injunctions against future such seizures. The court dismissed the suit, holding that the single-copy seizure for evidentiary use in pending state prosecutions did not require a prior hearing and that federal intervention was unwarranted absent bad faith or irreparable harm to First Amendment rights, as state courts could address constitutional issues.

free speechcriminal lawfederal powercivil rights

This case is a class action by about 1830 co-owners seeking to cancel a 1960 mineral lease granted by the Louisiana State Mineral Board to Chevron Oil Company on a 253-acre tract held by heirs in indivision under a state statute allowing such leases when ownership is highly fragmented. Plaintiffs claimed the lease expired after one year because no drilling occurred on the leased land itself and unitization with other properties was improper or unauthorized, and they also alleged failures in royalty payments, delays, and improper deductions or pricing under the lease terms. The court dismissed the suit with prejudice after a trial, holding that the voluntary and Commissioner-ordered units were valid, production began timely through those units, all conservation orders were properly issued without objection, and Chevron's royalty accounting complied with the lease and applicable FPC and state regulations.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant H. Rap Brown, who was convicted by a jury of transporting a firearm in interstate commerce while under indictment for a felony. After remand from the Fifth Circuit following Alderman v. United States, the district court held a hearing to determine whether electronic surveillance of the defendant's prison telephone calls violated his Fourth Amendment rights and whether any illegally obtained evidence was relevant to his conviction. The surveillance consisted of state prison officials monitoring calls for security reasons without federal involvement or knowledge, resulting in an FBI memorandum (Exhibit 1-4) summarizing two calls. The court assumed without deciding that the surveillance was unlawful but concluded that the contents of the overheard conversations had no connection to the firearm charge, did not involve attorney-client communications about the case, and were not used to obtain evidence against the defendant. Accordingly, the court found no basis to suppress evidence or order a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This admiralty case arose from a December 1967 collision in which the container ship M/V New Yorker struck and destroyed Chevron's unmanned fixed gas-well platform in the Gulf of Mexico. The platform's required navigational light and horn were inoperative at the time, while the ship had left the designated safety fairway, was not using radar, and had an inadequate lookout. Applying the presumption of fault against a moving vessel that strikes a fixed object, together with the Pennsylvania rule shifting the burden to a statutory violator, the court found that both the ship's navigational failures and Chevron's failure to maintain the required aids to navigation were causes of the collision. It therefore held the parties equally at fault and liable.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Catalano v. United States, the widow and daughter of William Catalano sued to recover overpaid federal estate taxes after the IRS included half the proceeds of a $25,000 life insurance policy in the decedent's gross estate and disallowed a deduction for 1959 real estate taxes on community property. The court found that the policy had been validly transferred to the wife as owner with community funds, making the proceeds her separate property not subject to inclusion under 26 U.S.C. § 2042, and that the property taxes had accrued as a collectible obligation before the October 1959 death, qualifying for deduction. Based on these facts and Louisiana community property and insurance ownership rules, the court entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $4,295.76 plus statutory interest. The topics are taxes and property.

taxesproperty

This case involved a claim by Leonard Chitty, owner of the motor vessel Tide Land, against the motor vessel Valley Voyager and its owner for damages from the sinking of the Tide Land on the Mississippi River after it tied up alongside the Valley Voyager. The court found that both vessels were negligent: the Tide Land for improper mooring and operation, and the Valley Voyager for failing to maintain a proper lookout and speed. The court concluded that the negligence of both parties contributed to the sinking, and therefore ordered that damages be divided between them under admiralty law principles.

torts & liability

This case involved a 1964 collision in Bayou Chene between the tow of the M/V Apache and the stern of the M/V Midwest Cities, which damaged Midwest Cities and injured deckhand Irvin Savoie. Savoie sued Apache Towing, National Marine Service (owner of Midwest Cities) intervened for its losses including maintenance and cure, and Savoie later filed a Jones Act claim against National Marine; after a settlement with Apache, the court adjudicated remaining liability. The court found Apache at fault for failing to post a lookout on its tow, not sounding required bend signals, and overtaking too rapidly in a narrow channel, while also noting Midwest Cities' position in the waterway. It held Apache liable to National Marine for all resulting damages under maritime rules governing collision liability and third-party payments.

torts & liabilityprocedure